According to new government plans, protests could be quelled by police before they cause a significant disturbance.
The ideas, according to Downing Street, will assist authorities in cracking down on “a disruptive minority” that uses tactics such as road blockage and slow marches.
It was stated that the revisions are intended to provide the police more flexibility and clarity regarding when they can interfere.
However, the human rights organization Liberty stated that the plans constitute an assault on the right to protest.
On Monday, an amendment to the Public Order Bill will be introduced outlining the proposals.
Its purpose is to crack down on disruptive protests by environmental activist groups such as Just Stop Oil, Insulate Britain. And Extinction Rebellion, which has blocked roads among other measures.
The measure, which pertains to England and Wales, is currently being examined by the House of Lords. And any amendments at this stage could be vetoed by peers before becoming law.
Some colleagues, who have been critical of earlier efforts to increase police powers to suppress protests, are sure to oppose the plans vehemently.
No. 10 stated that the modifications would eliminate the need for police to wait for unrest to end a protest.
It stated that troops might also take into account the “whole impact” of a succession of protests by the same group. As opposed to seeing them as separate occurrences.
Police powers for disruptive protests
The right to protest is a vital element of our democracy. But it is not absolute, as stated by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak. It is necessary to strike a balance between the rights of individuals and the rights of the hardworking majority to conduct their daily affairs.
We cannot allow a small minority’s protests to impair the life of the general populace.
Chief Constable BJ Harrington, the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s lead for public order and public safety. Stated, “This will assist police in swiftly and confidently taking appropriate action and making arrests.”
Downing Street’s press release is the only source of information about the government’s plans to end what it deems “disruptive protests.”
According to Number 10, a modification to the Public Order Bill will provide the police with “more flexibility and clarity” in their abilities to prevent demonstrators from employing “guerrilla tactics” and producing “chaos.”
In the current state of affairs. However, we lack clarity because a definition of “severe disruption” has not yet been established.
Opposition parties and civil liberties activists contend that the police already have the authority to handle violent or highly disruptive demonstrations. The Public Order Bill would establish serious disruption orders. Allowing the police to set limitations on persons and granting them enhanced stop-and-frisk authority.
However, senior police officers feel that greater clarification is required due to the intricacy of case law. Sir Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, wants to establish “where the balance of rights should be struck.” The vigil for Sarah Everard prompted legal action. Snd the High Court ruled in March of last year that the policing violated the organizers’ rights.
The Just Stop Oil organization
But Martha Spurrier, director of the human rights organization Liberty. Described the plans as “a desperate attempt to silence the voices of regular people.”
She stated that permitting the police to disperse protests before any disruption “sets a terrible precedent.”
Sir Keir Starmer, leader of the Labour Party, stated that Just Stop Oil demonstrators’ tactics were improper and “very arrogant”. But police already had the authority to take action against them.
Officers of the LBC may be given greater clarity over when to intervene without the necessity for legislation, he stated.
Labor peer Baroness Shami Chakrabarti, a former director of Liberty, stated that police already had sufficient powers to arrest anybody impeding motorways and that the government’s proposals handed cops “a blank check.”
She stated, “This, I fear, amounts to punishing every peaceful protest as if it were terrorism.”
This kind of preemption will effectively stifle dissent that isn’t even causing any disturbance because their definition sets such a low threshold.
The Just Stop Oil organization characterized the idea as “a dark and totalitarian attempt to undermine the fundamental human rights upon which our democracy rests.”
The Public Order Bill previously had provisions to create a new criminal offense for interfering with critical national infrastructure. Such as oil refineries and railroads, as well as for “locking on.”
Some climate protesters have employed this strategy when they chain themselves to an object or building.
The bill is a continuation of the controversial Police, Crime, Sentencing, and Courts Act. Which was passed last year and criticized by several organizations for limiting the right to protest.
Under this current law, if the police seek to restrict a protest, they must generally demonstrate that it could lead to “severe public disorder, substantial damage to property, or serious disruption of the life of the community.”
